Suit over Isle environmental study alleges corps 'crossed line'

GALVESTON — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intentionally ignored recommendations from state and federal agencies and scientific evidence to avoid assessing the cumulative damage to endangered wetlands and coastal prairie on Galveston Island, according to new filings in a federal lawsuit.

The outcome of the suit could determine the fate of development on the island.

The corps "crossed the line" and failed to comply with a court order in deciding that it wasn't necessary to do a cumulative impact study on the proposed 142-acre Anchor Bay development, according to attorneys for four environmental groups and a homeowner's association.

Texas scientists filed letters supporting the lawsuit, ridiculing the research relied upon by the corps and warning that the residential development would put the island at risk of being cut in half by a storm surge from a moderate hurricane.

The groups sued the corps in January 2008 to force the agency to assess the effects of development over time on endangered wetlands, disappearing coastal prairie and wildlife habitat on the west end of Galveston Island. The west end contains the bulk of the undeveloped land on the island.

Lawsuit's history

A similar lawsuit failed in 2007 when then-District Judge Samuel Kent lifted a ban on wetlands permits he imposed in 2004.

U.S. District Judge Sim Lake ordered the corps in March last year to stop issuing permits to build on wetlands until it could explain why it concluded that the Anchor Bay development was environmentally acceptable.

The corps in March this year asked that the court allow it to resume issuing permits to build on wetlands, arguing that it had re-examined the Anchor Bay proposal and again found that it would do so little damage to wetlands and coastal prairie that there was no point in doing a cumulative impact study.

The agency argued that the developer had compensated for lost wetlands and prairie.

The environmental groups responded this week by filing a response with the court saying the corps is acting in "bad faith."

"Under its current analytical approach, the entirety of the natural resources of Galveston Island could be and will be destroyed without the corps ever finding a significant impact of its actions," it reads.

Attorney Jim Blackburn, who filed the lawsuit, said the Corps of Engineers misunderstood the court's ruling or is misrepresenting it.

Scientists' opinions

Blackburn's argument is bolstered by two scientists, John Anderson, professor of oceanography at Rice University, and H.C. Clark, who taught geology and geophysics at Rice University for 23 years.

Anderson, who reviewed the corps report, said in a letter that he failed to understand how the agency could reach a conclusion that was not supported by readily available scientific research.

Anderson could not be reached for comment, but in a letter to Blackburn that was submitted to the court, he says the corps relied almost entirely on unpublished reports and websites for sources.

Clark could not be reached for comment, but his letter to Blackburn and the court says that the corps was misleading in saying that the proposed development was not in a hazardous zone. Although the building site is not hazardous now, it will be once it is dredged for 5-foot deep canals, he wrote.

The proposed canal system will serve as a conduit for a storm surge, which will scour the canal system and cause catastrophic erosion that could sever the island during a "moderate hurricane," Clark wrote.